Posted
by
samzenpuson Sunday October 13, 2013 @09:28AM
from the why-did-you-program-me-to-feel-pain? dept.

Lucas123 writes "This past week at Ft. Benning, weaponized robot prototypes from four robotics companies — Northrop Grumman, HDT Robotics, iRobot Corp. and QinetiQ — demonstrated their abilities to traverse rugged terrain, fire machine guns and take out pop-up targets from a distance of 150 meters. 'They're not just tools, but members of the squad. That's the goal,' said Lt. Col. Willie Smith, chief of Unmanned Ground Vehicles at Fort Benning. For example, the Northrup Grumman's CaMEL (Carry-all Mechanized Equipment Landrover) can run for 24 hours on three-and-a-half gallons of fuel, and can be equipped with a grenade launcher, an automatic weapon and anti-tank missiles. The CaMEL also can identify targets from three-and-a-half kilometers away, using a daylight telescope or thermal imaging. The robots have also demonstrated their ability to be air dropped behind enemy lines or into remote terrain."

I keep asking myself how they will prevent them from shooting the wrong personand then I'm reminded of the movie "Screamers" and realize that this problem hasalready been solved with "tags". And we think leftover mines are bad. Wait tillthe next major war and 10,000 war robots get dropped over enemy lines that shootanything that moves.

I keep asking myself how they will prevent them from shooting the wrong person

Wrong question. The right question is whether they would be more or less likely to shoot the wrong person than a human soldier would. Many atrocities, such as My Lai [wikipedia.org] and No Gun Ri [wikipedia.org] were committed by soldiers angry over the deaths or maiming of comrades and fearful for their own safety. Since robots don't have emotions, they would not have committed those massacres.

The danger is that there will be a technological arms race which is impossible with human soldiers. Unless someone invents a super-soldier serum the training and command techniques for humans will continue to evolve extremely slowly. Code for military robots will evolve comparatively quickly. It will get to a point where a few milliseconds faster reaction decides which machine wins, and that means a few milliseconds less to device if the target is legitimate or not.

What happens when the other side has autonomous killer robots with faster reactions than our man-controlled robots? Will we stick with non-autonomous machines and get our asses handed to us by the other guys?Of course not.

Great for the ones leading the robots, whether it be governments, corporations or lords.Crappy for whomever they are sent against as they will not disobey orders.... Whether they be American citizens, homeless people, freedom fighters etc...

Sorry, but as much as I like the thought of taking people out of harms way, the potential for abuse here far outstrips any gain we could possibly have for it. So long as they know a huge portion of the military will refuse to do some things, it restrains the ones giving

The necessity to convince to people to go and fight has been a limiting factor in history.

This is very true. One pattern that can been seen is that to convince people to fight suicidally in war (i.e., without retreating despite how grim things look -- something that's necessary unless the opponent it completely outmatched) they need to believe it's the right thing to do. This isn't so difficult when fighting defensively against an opponent whose goal is to rape, pillage, and murder. Fighting suicidally against the Vikings, for example, was the only option available.

It gets a little more difficult when the conquerors only wish to oppress. Then ideals need to be fought for -- "They can take your lives, but they'll never take your freedom!"

It gets real difficult when you want to take the offensive. That requires some more abstract ideology -- nationalism, religion, or better yet a combination of the two. A good example of this is the power of the Roman army when it consisted of proud Romans who believed they were civilizing the world (they actually kind of were), and the fall of Rome when the armies largely consisted of mercenaries gathered from conquered territories that were far from the capitol. Nationalism at work. The Crusades are another clear example of this -- fight to keep the holy land holy. Religion at work.

Joan of Arc did both. The Japanese did both in WWII, which was epitomized by their kamikaze attacks. They didn't just fight suicidally -- they fought with suicide.

Basically, a robot allows one to cut the bullshit and just send it out to kill. We're already doing this with drone attacks. Perhaps these things will help illustrate to people how horribly unethical this is.

I'm sure that using robots against opponents will in now way build resentment and hatred for the United States, who is more than willing to sacrifice others in their wars, but has no taste for putting their own lives on the line for their beliefs.

This may win the US battles, but it's going to lose the war on building any sustainable relationships with other cultures.

While you are true in the essence of your conclusion, you are wrong in using the term "war on building any sustainable relationships". First, war is not a very well chosen term in context of relationship or sustainable. For sustainable relationships the US must learn to compromise and cooperate with other. But the whole political system in the US is based on competition of two parties, and the "winner takes it all"-mentality. It has become worse in recent years including the previous Bush administration.

Instead of alienating everybody you could start to be cooperative. Listen to other cultures, be trustworthy, compromise, don't try to be the bully in the schoolyard. Use your military only to defend you home country and eventually the territory of allies.

In summary: Don't be the imperialist you have been in the decades since 1945. Your president Eisenhower already saw that coming. Now you have a world (6 billion people) who find you untrustworthy, bully and a pain in the ass. The robots will not solve this issue.

What do you mean? Do you want to invade China or the EU? Because we are very pissed about you spying on us (in cooperation with the British government of course). Honestly, the US runs around like a bully and wonders when it is disliked everywhere. Maybe, just maybe, try to cooperate with the rest of us, meaning 6 billion people.

BTW: Empires, who only base their strength on their military always have fallen. Cooperation is a much better solution.

(Tongue-in-cheek, but too many of my fellow Americans think that way.)

It became evident back in 2002 when the US started using the word Homeland. The similarities with the USSR usage of Motherland or the Nazi usage of Fatherland aren't simple coincidence. There are patterns in this kind of thing.

PS.: Oh, and among jihadist Muslims there's also the overuse of this concept of the, so to speak, "Peaceland" (technically "house of Islam", in contradistinction to the "house(s) of War", i.e., everyone else), which is what they believe to be protecting and/or fighting for.

A possible shift in the minds of the "enemy" may be that they can no longer count on blowing up US troops as part of a conflict.

If there is one thing that the drones have shown (right or wrong) is that the US military can effectively target anyone without risking personnel which is of huge political benefit.

Psychologically, I think that is forcing the re-evaluation of the "state based agressors", that they are not on equal terms...

My $0.02.

The problem is any asymmetrical conflict inevitably requires boots on the ground at some point. Even if soldiers aren't on the front lines, you will need them to patrol cities, guard bases, and do pretty much anything else that involves contact with local civilians. That means they are targets. Engagement is a key component of winning the support of the population, and having armed robots everywhere will only hurt that. Personally I am against robotic combatants except in very limited instances. Robert

I am not trying to say it is good or bad but in terms of asymmetry, having an unlimited supply of robots warriors would/should terrify any sane opponent...

It wouldn't terrify them. They would love it. It would play right into their propaganda and would allow them to recruit a much larger portion of the population than they could otherwise. To me, robotic combatants only have a major role in conventional warfare. Instead of using a Wild Weasel on a SAM/AA site, send in a swarm of drones. Augment the front lines and protect your tanks with squads of TOW-armed robots. Use robots for CSAR or medical exacuations.

The Taliban in Pakistan aren't at the negotiating table trying to get the drone attacks stopped because it's ineffective. They're their because, if you're a Taliban leader, you never know when you're about to be killed by a drone strike - and that kind of takes the edge of all the perks of being a warlord when you get promoted while they're still looking for the last guys smoking boots.

Frankly, the idea that the US would be less hated if they showed up in person with soldiers to kill people is just propagan

Frankly, the idea that the US would be less hated if they showed up in person with soldiers to kill people is just propaganda from the other side. The US is hated because they're killing a bunch of civilians when they carry out drone strikes. They'd be just as hated if they did it with tanks or commandos.

It's not propaganda, it is simple common sense. Armored vehicles, drones, etc dehumanize the counterinsurgency force, distances them from the population. It is much easier to hate a thing, an action, instead of a person. Theorists on both sides of asymmetrical conflicts, such as Thompson and Mao, note the importance of earning and maintaining the trust and support of the local population. Insurgents do this by weakening, or appearing to weaken, the position of the government by bombings, attacking key i

"State-based aggressors" basically went out with the fall of the Soviet Union. 9/11 brought Asymmetrical Warface (terrorism) to the forefront. Drones reverse the asymmetry.

Drones and autonomous war robots have been the ultimate dream of generals through the ages. Soldiers who don't question orders. Who will kill anyone without hesitation or conscience. And who don't return bearing drug addictions and PTSD which can make them a burden - or a menace - to the peasants paying for it all back home.

It all sounds so wonderful, but just the other day came a plea from Malala to discontinue the use of assassin drones. And if anyone is entitled to cheer for the efficient extermination of the Taliban she is the one. It's not enough that they tried to kill her once, they're recently declared that - big brave Warriors of God that they are - they will try to kill this girl again.

So maybe it isn't so wonderful after all. War is not a mathematical or academic exercise. Donald Rumsfeld tried to treat it as such, and we've seen the results.

That is true, but when war comes knocking, you still have to answer the door. Look at the US during World War I/II. It only takes one side to start a war, and they are more likely to attack someone that hasn't prepared for war over one that has. It is all well and good to not desire war. In fact, I would say most who have seen it and many who have studied it would hesitate going to war. But sometimes war is unavoidable and may be the best option available.

I agree. The problem comes when we forget that the traditional role of the USA was, if anything, to wait too long before getting involved and now get involved too soon.

Case in point: During the waning months of 1999, Saddam Hussein had been probing the Iraq No-Fly Zone, continually pushing his limits.

Had we not rushed off to invade under the ridiculous pretense that Iraq was in bed with Al Queda, Hussein would have almost certainly eventually done something flagrant enough to warrant the invasion that event

It's the future and whining about it is no different than whining about the advent of the rifle or the machine gun or the bow. Your taking the fight away from the human being through a layer of abstraction to keep your soldier alive. The layer of abstraction in this case happens to be a robot, once upon a time it was a gun or a bow.

The people complaining about this are really no different than the Luddites that think warfare should be conduced hand to hand with swords and maces. They wont be satisfied unless their own soldiers are getting killed on the battlefield too. Technology advances whether you want it to or not. Change and human nature are the only things that stay the same.

My problem isn't the fact that they are building killer robots.... it's the fact that the other side doesn't have anything close and these will be used to hit non-military targets and/or populations of civilians in 3rd world countries full of poor dirt farmers that we've pissed off.

Slaughtering people with machines from thousands of miles away to protect your country's interests with no official declaration of war is a little sick. We'd be killing real people, they'd simply be breaking an expensive toy. D

Remove the hyberbole from your argument and people are much more likely to take you seriously.

My problem isn't the fact that they are building killer robots.... it's the fact that the other side doesn't have anything close

For an example of something where the two sides had something close you need only look at WWI. The two sides had very close capacity, the result was a multiyear quagmire that resulted in the death in tens of millions of people as neither side was able to quickly 'win'. Because it was so dr

You are wrong on many points.WWII costed roughly 50 million deaths, not a mere few 10 millions.The spanish flue costed close to 200 million deaths, not a mere few 10 million.The US army bombed civilian centers in korea and vietnam, that is after WWII if I recall corectly.Foreign aid of the USA per capita is more or less the same as other civilized nations and far behind scandinavian nations.

Also keep in mind: which nations get for what project foreign aid? I bet even "schooling" a foreign secret agency fall

For an example of something where the two sides had something close you need only look at WWI.

The death toll of WWI was around 37,000,000 - which sounds a lot like 'tens of millions'. The death toll of the Spanish flu was about 50 million [cdc.gov] (with high estimates of 100 million), which also sounds a lot like 'tens of millions'.

Foreign aid of the USA per capita is more or less the same as other civilized nations and far behind scandinavian nations.

Lies?Death toll of spanish flue is 180M minimum, read wikipedia.Lieas about per capita foreign aid? Germany + france + Uk, the three behind USA in foreign aid, have less the population together the USA have and spends the same amount the USA does, read your own fucking government site.

Yadda yadda yaddda about your lame excuses now about US bombings in Vietnam and Korea. The USA had nothing to do or seek there, they simply tried again to stay on top of world supremancy. And yes, now you admit they did bombi

on my posting where I said the US hasn't bombed civilian centers since WW2Yes you said that, and I told you it is wrong, so what is your problem in accepting this?There where various other points I proved you wrong (e.g. the per capita foreign aid the US is giving), posting links to various PDFs does not change anything on this.

WWII costed roughly 50 million deaths, not a mere few 10 millions.The spanish flue costed close to 200 million deaths, not a mere few 10 million.The US army bombed civilian centers in korea and vietnam, that is after WWII if I recall corectly.Foreign aid of the USA per capita is more or less the same as other civilized nations and far behind scandinavian nations.

First, he said world war ONE. Second, he said "tens of millions", not "ten of million". Third, the US army bombed civilian "centers" (they're called cities, btw) because bombs of that era were dumb. Once you released them, they fell on a ballistic trajectory... which is why we had to send dozens of bombers out to kill a single strategic target. Yes, today we can put a missile through a window or drop a bomb on a dime. We couldn't back then. Most factories, power generation facilities, and other strategic ta

I only misread the point about WWI (where I saw WWII). It would be a shame if the USA would not be the top foreign aid giver: in total.However my parent claimed it in a way that suggested all other nations would not care. But regarding per capita or even national gross product, they are not the leader.Also he was wrong about the korean and vietnam wars.I don't care about the reasons... but he claimed civilians where not bombed, but in fact they where.

WWI had btw roughly 40million deaths.While this still is (4) tenth of millions, it is not accurate.If an ordinary person says "there are dozens" of it, it means two or three dozens, certainly not 5, so the 4 in this case is remotely in order but a gross simplification (in other words: he had no clue and just throw in a random number).

China doesn't have anything close? Maybe not yet, but surely it will pretty soon, not to mention that they have more military age males than the entire population of the USA. We might need some robots.

As semi-automatic weapons where the gun is controlled by a human, yes, robots are probably the future of US warfare. The US military and public have always been obsessed with rating the lifes of American soldiers and citizens ten to hundred times higher than that of any other fellow human being on earth, including innocent civilian bystanders.

As a fully autonomous weapon, I very much doubt these robots will be usable any time in the foreseeable future, though. Reliable friend/foe recognition is a problem that will not be solved anytime soon. I'm not claiming that friendly fire is not a problem among humans, but we allow humans to make more errors than machines. When soldiers are getting shot at by their own automatized war machines, they will accept that less than if one of their fellow humans makes a mistake.

This does have one important distinction from previous weapons though - in the past there always had to be men behind the weapons. A bow, a rifle, or an artillery shell make it easier to kill "the enemy", both physically and emotionally, than with a melee weapon that puts you face to face with your opponent, but there is still a person making the decision to fire every single shot. As we move towards autonomous killing machines though that changes. And let's not kid ourselves, whether or not the current

It's the future and whining about it is no different than whining about the advent of the rifle or the machine gun or the bow. Your taking the fight away from the human being through a layer of abstraction to keep your soldier alive. The layer of abstraction in this case happens to be a robot, once upon a time it was a gun or a bow.

The people complaining about this are really no different than the Luddites that think warfare should be conduced hand to hand with swords and maces. They wont be satisfied unless their own soldiers are getting killed on the battlefield too. Technology advances whether you want it to or not. Change and human nature are the only things that stay the same.

The machine gun was only a good invention if it was not pointing at you. It helped destroy many cultures, enabled genocide in the name of "civilization" and allowed the west (us) to basically steal land and resources from other people - something from which they have not recovered as yet.Any technology that tips the balance of power decisively in favour of one group will not stop war, it will ensure war (albeit a quick and bloody one).

Something that allows one side to fight a war without any cost will, I t

What makes you think anyone would ever tolerate using robots on civilians? Your asking that the civilians in charge start ordering the murder of civilians in a manner that only happens in science fiction books.

If anything it could be argued that by removing emotions they are less likely to lose their cool and go overboard. A robot doesn't have PTSD, doesn't suffer from racism, sexism or other ism's and isn't subject to the same discrimination that humans are subject too.

What makes you think anyone would ever tolerate using robots on civilians?

Of course: they just have to claim that the civilians are "terrorists".

Of course, entire books and movies have covered the subject for decades, meaning anybody working on one is highly cognizant of the possibility and likely to do their damnedest to make sure that doesn't happen.

From the comments, sounds like what everyone wants is for the US to stop developing robotic weapon systems. This will let Iran, North Korea and Taliban to develop these first and then we can play catch up 20 years behind them. Playing catch is so much fun. Weapon development must be a US monopoly ?

The Taliban live in the stone age, trading their opium and other resources for first world weapons.

There is no way they develop anything more sophisticated than a new type of body bomb.

A robot is not just simply assembled from off the shelf parts (yet) and its control and programming is not something a smart high school kid can do on its own (perhaps access to hughe internet resources might help)

Increasing killing efficiency to save lives. The irony is over the top. All sides taken into account, we will not be satisfied as a species until every last human is dead. At least then we will have lasting peace and equality.

We are "obsessed" with fighting because at its core the human being is an animal. Animals fight for food, for territory, for reproduction. Strip down every conflict in recorded human history and you will find at least one of those elements at it's core. Or, put in other words, resources are and always will be finite. Someone will always have more than someone else, and survival dictates that the only way to get what you need that another has is by coercive force.

Those of us who are capable of living outside of the war to control resources, are able to do so because someone else is waging that war for us.

The coming wars will be not only over hydrocarbons, but over water. Since a large percentage of the world's politicians and industries are hell-bent on ignoring or denying the climate change we see around us, water is going to become a very important resource and a cause for future conflicts - along with food of course since we are denuding the oceans of their life

We have a rule in the US that a human must make the final call before delivering any ordinance, be it by soldier, drone, or robot. The problem is that many foreign countries that figure this out won't have this moral impediment. Yes, this is worth worrying about...

We have a rule in the US that a human must make the final call before delivering any ordinance, be it by soldier, drone, or robot. The problem is that many foreign countries that figure this out won't have this moral impediment. Yes, this is worth worrying about...

Having a human making the call is not enough, if take your soldiers out of the battlefield you don't have a reason to use lethal force anymore.
The use of lethal force in only acceptable because the alternative is that the enemy kills you. But if you deploy a robot, the alternative is that the enemy destroys
an expensive piece of hardware. You no longer have a valid reason to employ lethal force, once you deploy robots.

The thing I don't get is why there's all this research into killer robots... They're us

My friend was at his friend's house back in 1990, when their dad came home. My friend noticed something on his tie, and it was a microchip. My friend was-and still is-really into computers, so he asked about it. The gentleman explained that it was a 250 megabyte memory chip.

Once again, a 250 megabyte chip, back in 1990.

He explained that they had a failure rate of 90%, and that most of them were simply blowing up the moment they were powered up. And indeed, the one on his tie had a small burn h

Obviously, it's a reference to use of robots in sexual encounters (but not in the Japanese way). From the Urban Dictionary [urbandictionary.com] definition of point man:

"When going out with a group of male friends with the intent of picking up women together, the point man is the friend that will always jump on the hand grenade, while the wing man's responsibility is to distract the cock blocker friend."

So the robot is to be the point man, while someone else (presumably you) pick up the girl. You might need a second robot as the wing man, of course.

Sorry about your sensitivity, but you illustrate my point. When you were drafted, everybody in the crosshairs of the SSS either became a veteran or knew someone who did, and we weren't sheltered from what was going on; today military service is something you can see in the movies if you feel like it. Patriotism has nothing to do with ignorance.

I joined the Army because i wanted to (this was pre-9/11). I now write software at double the State's average income. I accept that most people think that soldiers are stupid. I think those people are ill-informed. I met some incredibly sharp people during my time there. But i do feel that the good ones don't stay long. It is incredibly taxing for people who think about consequences (both future and past). It takes a certain level of insensitivity to thrive as a soldier. I enjoyed the suck, tolerate